Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
As I understand, Islam and secularism cannot go hand in hand.
There is enough in the Koran to proves o and I don't wish to go into all this, as it has already been done many a time. Not in my version, and not in the Turkish Presidency of Religious Affairs version. I mean who knows better, an institution which ran the Caliphate (the Ottomans) or some imam in the desert in Arabia? Yeh, the Imam in the desert has more money and can spread his views under the disguise that it is Islam to almost all over the world, but the Turks will never buy it! Full Stop!
At best one can concede is that Turkey has separated religion from governance under the diktat of Kemal Ataturk.
However, when I say 'rediscovring Islam'what I mean is that while Kemal brought in secularism, the modern Turk politicians are mixing religion with governance, wherein physical manifestation of Islam (not done in Kemal's regime) is finding favour as the PM's wife's hijab etc. Can you please give me an example of how they mix religion with Government affairs. To assert such opinion you must back it with examples such as Religious based legislation or decisions. Overtly practicing your religion is not mixing religious affairs with government affairs. I'm sure a majority of the Western World leaders are good Christians. I think it is even better. They are less likely to be corupt.
It is to the layman, the slow return to the old days. Even return to old days cannot be done in a jiffy. It has to be done slowly. I don't see any slow changes...unless you see EU admission as becoming more radicalised. There are many claims regarding the Turkish Government, but all their actions thus far, are not in my view ill motivated.
As far as the 72 virgins is concerned, there was a person on this forum called Platinum who indicated that it was actually not virgins but ripe grapes just ready for the picking!I have read the Koran on numerous occassions and have seen no mention of anything pertaining to this. What the problem is Hadith. Hadith is apparently the written version of the Islamic Prohets (PBUH) actions. It is here that a majority of the ill-willed clerics insert weird and bogus "juristic" opinions. It is here they can distort the religion according to their views and ambitions. The first principle of any religion is that you practice it in good-faith, not for personal gain, hence, their ideology is fundamentaly wrong!
|
The Hijab/head scarf (excluding the Burka which covers the whole face, and is cultural not religious according to the Turkish Islamic Scholars) or what ever you call it is not an indication of radicalism. The need or no need to wear such attire arises from various different interpretations of the Koran by different scholars. Other interpretations such as that of the Presidency of Religious Affairs states no requirement. You can still be a muslim with no head scarf.
Furthermore, you are making the assertion that secularism equals atheism, which is misleading. One can perfectly well be a muslim and also secular. Secularism just states that the Government must maintain an equal distance between all religions and not intefere in the religious sphere! It does not argue that all of Islam must be banned. Nor is the principle of secularism demisnished if one overtly practices Islam or any other religion for that matter, while in Government office.
Just a note: In Turkey, the Chief Rabbi of Istanbul and also the Patriarch of Constantinople are always invited into the Presidential Palace at Cankaya, Ankara for Government functions, yet if the President of Religious Affairs or any other Imam were to be invited there would be a major constitutional crisis. Don't you think this is a double-standard?
Well, this has now been changed and there is no distinction between the religions leaders. All religious leaders are invited including Islamic Imams, thanks to a protocol change by President Abdullah Gul. I don't view this as Islamic fundamentalism. It is still in conformity with the doctrine of secularism.
Now, it is very concerning to see that a majority of you favour the radical Iranian and Saudi Arabian versions of Islam, since you always invoke them when discussing Islam. Yet, you do not understand that the only grounded and reliable authority on the religion is Turkey, the successor State to the Ottoman Caliphate/Empire. Is this because, you do not see us Turkish Muslims as a threat and hence don't bother mentioning us...or do you not want to mention us because we disprove the misleading hypothesis that Islam is violent and cannot exist parallel with a democracy?
I would sure like to know...as I am fed up with ill-informed and pre-judicial comments on here about the Islamic faith!